The Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church

477. Rome's claim to interpretative authority, based on an obviously doctored text of the Bible can only appeal to those who have not heard the voice of the true Shepherd.

It used to be the Protestant tradition that the Catholic religion is opposed to the Bible. Now when a man has that fixed idea firmly embedded in his mind, he gets a shock when he hears the Bible quoted in favor of Catholicism. The stronger the texts are, the greater his shock. But some people never dream that they may have been laboring under a delusion. They refuse to entertain the idea that they have been wrong all their lives. The texts quoted seem to point to Catholicism all right, but to them it simply cannot be true. So they seek an excuse for not believing what they cannot refute. Every text which seems to favor Catholicism cannot mean what it says, but must obviously be "doctored." And they are so sure that they alone are truly guided by God that anyone impressed by the case for the Catholic religion must be regarded as not having heard the voice of the true Shepherd!

478. Other Churches claim to have given the Bible equal study, and claim equal value for their interpretation.

Since no non-Catholic Churches claim to be infallible, but admit their constant liability to error, they cannot even claim equal value for their interpretations. Moreover, apart from their divergence from the Catholic interpretation, they differ amongst themselves. That would not be, had they all equally arrived at the correct sense of the Bible. As a matter of fact, all practically nullify the claims of each as a reliable guide to the meaning of Scripture.

479. Protestantism and Catholicism are founded on the same basic principles, their differences being due to different interpretations of the Bible.

They are not founded on the same basic principles. In basic principles they are diametrically opposed. What is the basic principle of Protestantism? It is belief in what one thinks the Bible to mean. If a man thinks the Bible to support this or that doctrine, then it surely does so; for he cannot imagine that he might be wrong. He makes an act of faith in his own judgment. But the Catholic basic principle is very different. Instead of deciding for himself what is or is not the teaching of Christ, the Catholic is taught that teaching by the Catholic Church. He knows that his own judgment is quite likely to be wrong, but that the Catholic Church cannot be wrong. How different are the basic principles of the two religions can be judged from results. For the Protestant principle leads to endless diversity, while the Catholic principle leads to a world-wide and international unity.

480. But the Catholic believes in the Catholic Church because he thinks the Bible supports it.

That is not so. The Bible does support it, of course. But even if he never saw a Bible, the Catholic would have sufficient ground for his judgment. He knows that the Catholic priest does not preach merely his own opinions, as does the Protestant minister. He knows that his Church is not a particular sect, but a vast united universal Apostolic Church, whose history shows the allegiance of innumerable saints and martyrs. And such a Church is impossible to account for by merely human forces. It is God's work on the very face of it. Merely human institutions have always tended to fluctuation, change, and disintegration. Empires have crumbled. No human being can get even one nation to agree, say, on political matters. How could a mere man persuade over 400 millions drawn from all nations to agree on religious matters — millions who differ on almost every other conceivable subject? The Catholic has reasonable grounds for his acceptance of the Church as the teacher of mankind in religious matters; and he submits to her authoritative teaching in matters of faith and morals, rather than decide for himself what the Bible must mean.

481. My point is, since Protestantism and Catholicism differ as to what the Bible means, who is to say which is right?

On Protestant principles, there is no one who could do so. And that is the basic fallacy of Protestantism. It offers no certainty, and can offer no certainty, as to what God does really teach. Yet it is essential that in so grave a matter we should have certainty. The Catholic Church alone can give it.

482. If you quote the Bible, the Protestant will quote the Bible; so we are back to our point of view of the Bible, and there is no means of deciding the issue.

For a Catholic the issue does not depend on the Bible, even though the Bible does corroborate Catholicism. No Protestant can prove his beliefs from the Bible, or even that they ought to be proved from the Bible. You say that Protestants cannot prove their position, and that Catholics cannot prove theirs. It's a matter of conjecture and opinion. Protestants may be right or Catholics may be right. Neither has proof, and we must be content to do without proof. I admit that that is the logical result of the Protestant principles on which you argue; and for that reason Protestantism must end in uncertainty and doubt. That in itself should be enough to prove that it cannot be the religion of Christ.

483. How will the problem be solved?

Only by abandoning the Protestant principle of personal and private judgment, and accepting the doctrines taught clearly and definitely by the Catholic Church. She is the only tribunal in the world with authority from God to teach all nations, and endowed with infallibility in order that she may not lead men into error. And for two thousand years she has both fulfilled and proved her mission under the protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost.

Preface To Volume One of "Radio Replies"

By RT. REV. MSGR. FULTON J. SHEEN, D.D

There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church  which is, of course, quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics "adore statues"; because they "put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God"; because they say "indulgence is a permission to commit sin"; because the Pope "is a Fascist"; because the "Church is the defender of Capitalism." If the Church taught or believed any one of these things it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.

If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which, in seasons of bigotry, men say must be destroyed in the name of God as men crucified Christ and thought they had done a service to God. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because He called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which is rejected by the world as Our Lord was rejected by men. Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its Voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. But only that which is Divine can be infinitely hated and infinitely loved. Therefore the Church is Divine.

If then, the hatred of the Church is founded on erroneous beliefs, it follows that basic need of the day is instruction. Love depends on knowledge for we cannot aspire nor desire the unknown. Our great country is filled with what might be called marginal Christians, i.e., those who live on the fringe of religion and who are descendants of Christian living parents, but who now are Christians only in name. They retain a few of its ideals out of indolence and force of habit; they knew the glorious history of Christianity only through certain emasculated forms of it, which have married the spirit of the age and are now dying with it. Of Catholicism and its sacraments, its pardon, its grace, its certitude and its peace, they know nothing except a few inherited prejudices. And yet they are good people who want to do the right thing, but who have no definite philosophy concerning it. They educate their children without religion, and yet they resent the compromising morals of their children. They would be angry if you told them they were not Christian, and yet they do not believe that Christ is God. They resent being called pagans and yet they never take a practical cognizance of the existence of God. There is only one thing of which they are certain and that is that things are not right as they are. It is just that single certitude which makes them what might be called the great "potentials," for they are ready to be pulled in either of two directions. Within a short time they must take sides; they must either gather with Christ or they must scatter; they must either be with Him or against Him; they must either be on the cross as other Christs, or under it as other executioners. Which way will these marginal Christians tend? The answer depends upon those who have the faith. Like the multitudes who followed Our Lord into the desert, they are as sheep without a shepherd. They are waiting to be shepherded either with the sheep or goats. Only this much is certain. Being human and having hearts they want more than class struggle and economics; they want Life, they want Truth, and they want Love. In a word, they want Christ.

It is to these millions who believe wrong things about the Church and to these marginal Christians, that this little book is sent. It is not to prove that they are "wrong"; it is not to prove that we are "right"; it is merely to present the truth in order that the truth may conquer through the grace of God. When men are starving, one need not go to them and tell them to avoid poison; nor to eat bread because there are vitamins in bread. One need only go to them and tell them that they are starving and here is bread, and the laws of nature will do the rest. This book of "Radio Replies" with 1,588 questions and answers goes out on a similar mission. Its primary task is not to humble the erroneous; not to glorify the Catholic Church as intellectual and self-righteous, but to present the truth in a calm, clear manner in order that with the grace of God souls may come to the blessed embrace of Christ.

It is not only the point of "Radio Replies" to prove that the Church is the only completely soul-satisfying Church in existence at the present day; it is also to suggest that the Catholic Church is the only Church existing today which goes back to the time of Christ. History is so very clear on this point, it is curious how many minds miss its obviousness. When therefore you, the readers of "Radio Replies" in the twentieth century, wish to know about Christ and about His early Church, and about His mysteries, we ask you to go not only to the written records but to the living Church which began with Christ Himself. That Church or that Mystical Person which has been living all these centuries is the basis of our faith and to us Catholics it speaks this way: "I live with Christ. I saw His Mother and I know her to be a Virgin and the loveliest and purest of all women in heaven or on earth; I saw Christ at Caesarea-Philippi, when, after changing Simon's name to Rock, He told him he was the rock upon which the Church would be built and that it would endure unto the consummation of the world. I saw Christ hanging on a cross and I saw Him rise from His tomb; I saw Magdalene rush to His feet; I saw the angels clad in white beside the great stone; I was in the Cenacle room when doubting Thomas put fingers into His hands; I was on Olivet when He ascended into heaven and promised to send His Spirit to the apostles to make them the foundation of His new Mystical Body on earth. I was at the stoning of Stephen, saw Saul hold the garments of those who slew him, and later I heard Saul, as Paul, preach Christ and Him crucified; I witnessed the beheading of Peter and Paul in Rome, and with my very eyes saw tens of thousands of martyrs crimson the sands with their blood, rather than deny the faith Peter and Paul had preached unto them; I was living when Boniface was sent to Germany, when Augustine when to England, Cyril and Methodius to the Poles, and Patrick to Ireland; at the beginning of the ninth century I recall seeing Charlemagne crowned as king in matters temporal as Peter's vicar was recognized as supreme in matters spiritual; in the thirteenth century I saw the great stones cry out in tribute to me, and burst into Gothic Cathedrals; in the shadows of those same walls I saw great Cathedrals of thought arise in the prose of Aquinas and Bonaventure, and in the poetry of Dante; in the sixteenth century I saw my children softened by the spirit of the world leave the Father's house and reform the faith instead of reforming discipline which would have brought them back again into my embrace; in the last century and at the beginning of this I heard the world say it could not accept me because I was behind the times. I am not behind the times, I am only behind the scenes. I have adapted myself to every form of government the world has ever known; I have lived with Caesars and kings, tyrants and dictators, parliaments and presidents, monarchies and republics. I have welcomed every advance of science, and were it not for me the great records of the pagan world would not have been preserved. It is true I have not changed my doctrine, but that is because the doctrine is not mine but His who sent Me. I change my garments which belong to time, but not my Spirit which belongs to eternity. In the course of my long life I have seen so many modern ideas become unmodern, that I know I shall live to chant a requiem over the modern ideas of this day, as I chanted it over the modern ideas of the last century. I celebrated the nineteen-hundredth anniversary of the death of my Redeemer and yet I am no older now than then, for my Spirit is Eternal, and the Eternal never ages. I am the abiding Personage of the centuries. I am the contemporary of all civilizations. I am never out of date, because the dateless; never out of time, because the timeless. I have four great marks: I am One, because I have the same Soul I had in the beginning; I am Holy, because that Soul is the Spirit of Holiness; I am Catholic, because that Spirit pervades every living cell of my Body; I am Apostolic, because my origin is identical with Nazareth, Galilee and Jerusalem. I shall grow weak when my members become rich and cease to pray, but I shall never die. I shall be persecuted as I am persecuted now in Mexico and Russia; I shall be crucified as I was on Calvary, but I shall rise again, and finally when time shall be no more, and I shall have grown to my full stature, then shall I be taken into heaven as the bride of my Head, Christ, where the celestial nuptials shall be celebrated, and God shall be all in all, because His Spirit is Love and Love is Heaven."

Introduction To The American Edition Of "Radio Replies" Vol One

"Radio Replies" TAN Books

"Radio Replies" by Rev. Dr. Rumble, M.S.C., is the result of five years of answering questions during a one-hour Question Box Program over Radio Station 2SM Sydney, N.S.W. The revision of "Radio Replies" for American readers was prompted by the widespread interest the Australian edition created among Protestants and Catholics during the summer of 1937, when I was carrying on as a Catholic Campaigner for Christ, the Apostolate to the man in the street through the medium of my trailer and loud-speaking system. In the distribution of pamphlets and books on Catholicism "Radio Replies" proved the most talked of book carried in my trailer display of Catholic literature. The clergy and laymen engaged in Street Preaching agree that it is not so much what you say over the microphone in answer to questions from open air listeners but what you GET INTO THEIR HANDS TO READ.

My many converts of the highways and parks throughout the Archdiocese of St. Paul have embraced the faith as a result of studying this book. Whole families have come into the Church through reading the book by this renowned convert from Anglicanism. The delay in getting copies from Sydney and the prohibitive cost of the book on this side of the universe led me to petition the author to have published a CHEAP AMERICAN EDITION in order to get this Encyclopaedia of Catholic Doctrine into the hands of fellow citizens. Because of the author's genius for brevity, preciseness, fearlessness and keen logic that avoids the usually long Scriptural and Traditional arguments of the average question and answer book, which is beyond the capacity of the man in the street, this manual of 1,588 questions and replies has already attracted readers throughout Australia, New Zealand, Africa, India, England, Ireland, Canada and now the United States.

The questions he answers are the questions I had to answer before friendly and hostile audiences throughout my summer campaign. The piquant and provocative subject matter of this book makes it a fascinating assembly of 300 or more worth-while pamphlet tracts, a dictionary of doctrine for the desk of the FAMILY, the STUDENT, the SHOP HAND, the OFFICE WORKER, the ATTORNEY, the DOCTOR, the TEACHER, and the PREACHER. It is a handy standard reference book of excellence for popular questions which are more than ever being asked by restless and bewildered multitudes. It is a textbook for the Confraternities of Christian Doctrine Classes and Study Clubs.

A non-Catholic Professor after reading the book stated that, "If the Catholic Church could defend herself so logically as 'Radio Replies' demonstrates, then I do not see why you don't get more converts." Members of the Knights of Columbus, the Holy Name Societies and numerous women's societies have written in that they no longer have to apologetically say, "I can't answer that one." Catholic students in non-sectarian colleges and universities write in that they now walk the campus with this book under their arms, ready for all challenges and that this manual of ready reference has cured their INFERIORITY COMPLEX ON EXPOSITION OF CATHOLIC CLAIMS. Lapsed Catholics have come into my trailer-office to confess that the reading of "Radio Replies" has brought them back to the Church.

I am grateful to His Excellency Archbishop John G. Murray, D.D. for his approval of this compendium of dogmatic and moral theology for readers of the American Commonwealth and I am deeply appreciative to Rt. Rev. Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen, D.D. for writing the Preface to this American edition.

From my experience on the Catholic Radio Hour, on the lecture platform, and in the pulpit, I do not hesitate to say that HERE AT LAST is the book that has something for everybody, the book for the UNINFORMED CATHOLIC, THE UNEDUCATED AND EDUCATED LAPSED CATHOLIC, and the PROSPECTIVE CONVERT.

Historical Context of "Radio Replies"

By markomalley

If one recalls the time frame from which Radio Replies emerged, it can explain some of the frankness and lack of tact in the nature of the responses provided.

It was during this timeframe that a considerable amount of anti-Catholic rhetoric came to the forefront, particularly in this country. Much of this developed during the Presidential campaign of Al Smith in 1928, but had its roots in the publication of Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, originally published in book form in 1919 and also published in pamphlet form in 1853.

While in Britain (and consequently Australia), the other fellow would surely have experienced the effects of the Popery Act, the Act of Settlement, the Disenfranchising Act, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and many others since the reformation (that basically boiled down to saying, "We won't kill you if you just be good, quiet little Catholics"). Even the so-called Catholic Relief Acts (1778, 1791, 1829, 1851, 1871) still had huge barriers placed in the way.

And of course, they'd both remember the American Protective Association, "Guy Fawkes Days" (which included burning the Pontiff in effigy), the positions of the Whigs and Ultra-Torries, and so on.

A strong degree of "in your face" from people in the position of authoritativeness was required back in the 1930s, as there was a large contingent of the populations of both the US and the British Empire who were not at all shy about being "in your face" toward Catholics in the first place (in other words, a particularly contentious day on Free Republic would be considered a mild day in some circles back then). Sure, in polite, educated circles, contention was avoided (thus the little ditty about it not being polite to discuss religion in public, along with sex and politics), but it would be naive to assume that we all got along, or anything resembling that, back in the day.

Having said all of the above, reading the articles from the modern mindset and without the historical context that I tried to briefly summarize above, they make challenging reading, due to their bluntness.

The reader should also keep in mind that the official teaching of the Church takes a completely different tone, best summed up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324

Nearly all balony!!! The Roman Catholic is coming apart, and coming down fast. They have not proclaimed the “King of Kings” nor the “Prince of Peace” They falsely teach “The Catholic Church Saves” when we all have but “ONE SAVIOUR” and “One Mediator between God and man!”

“There is only one name (Jesus Christ) given among men whereby we must be saved. Neither is there salvation in any other.” (Acts 4:12)
“Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him(Jesus Christ), and given Him(Jesus Christ)a name which is above every name.” (Phil. 2:9)

8
posted on 08/01/2010 3:32:52 AM PDT
by LetMarch
(If a man knows the right way to live, and does not live it, there is no greater coward. (Anonyous)

Foolish and illiterate use of scripture. For two millennia, the greatest poets, writers, philosophers, scientists, astronomers, nobel laureates, inventors, discovers, writers, sculptors, painters, and hundreds of millions of ordinary people including rabbis, protestant ministers, hindu and buddhist priests, and yes communists as well have all become part of the Catholic Church -the mustard seed that now covers the whole globe. Do some serious reading and not be part of the 25,000 wild mushroom religious sects.

Britain and Brits had been there before and had been Catholic before it broke free from the power of the Roman empire, America was the first and only time that Catholicism was totally left out of the creation of a new nation, it bordered of course on a nation that had the more traditional Catholic background, Mexico.

18
posted on 08/01/2010 12:44:00 PM PDT
by ansel12
(Mitt: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush")

I refer my honorable friend to the 1981 movie "Stripes" and the role of Sergeant Hulka played by American character actor Warren Oates, specifically to one of the all time greatest lines delivered in American film history.

"Lighten up, Francis."

Greatest Britain? There's also a move to rename Canada as Northest America.

BTW, go tell an actual Englishman that England used to be Catholic. Of course that same hypothetical Englishman would react the same way if you said England isn't Catholic now. It's a weird POV they have over there.

“Britain and Brits had been there before and had been Catholic before it broke free from the power of the Roman empire,”

Incorrect. 1) ancient Britain never broke free of the Roman Empire. The Romans left - much to the regret of the Britains who wanted and needed their protection. 2) the Angles, Saxons and Jutes then invaded.

“America was the first and only time that Catholicism was totally left out of the creation of a new nation,”

False. Great Britain was created first and was Protestant.

“...it bordered of course on a nation that had the more traditional Catholic background, Mexico.”

And Canada. And there had already been Catholic settlers even in the 13 colonies.

I’m not talking about when the paper was signed, those people had been Catholic before they became Protestant, that was not the situation in America, and when I said the Roman empire, I was speaking of the Roman church that exists today.

22
posted on 08/01/2010 12:53:44 PM PDT
by ansel12
(Mitt: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush")

“Im not talking about when the paper was signed, those people had been Catholic before they became Protestant,”

People, yes. Nation, no. Great Britain was never anything but a Protestant nation since it was founded by a Protestant monarch and Protestant parliament. You were wrong.

“that was not the situation in America, and when I said the Roman empire, I was speaking of the Roman church that exists today.”

Then you are wrong again. An empire is not a Church nor is a Church an empire. The Roman Empire and Catholic Church existed simultaneously but were under different leadership and had largely different concerns. Anyone who confuses the two - deliberately - is either ignorant or a bigot or both. There are no alternatives. You are proving that you need to read more history.

What Ansel12 is apparently asserting is that the United States of America is the greatest nation in history because of it being Protestant from the beginning without Catholic influence.

Does that mean to ascertain exactly how great the US is we need to cut out any parts of the US that were previously colonized by Catholics and weed out any particular Catholics who contributed to the success of this nation? Not much left if we do that though.

Of course we have to take away French support of the Revolutionary War also. “Lafayette, we aren’t here”? DC would look pretty weird too.

Sorry friend, but the Protestant vote is conservative, the Catholic vote has always been liberal, if anything, they are sometimes joining the Protestant vote in recent decades, mostly during a reelection after first voting against the Republican, but it is a start.

Even Protestant Hispanics are voting to the right of Catholics.

29
posted on 08/01/2010 2:03:46 PM PDT
by ansel12
(Mitt: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush")

That goes for everyone, but there is a central command for Catholics and after a lifetime of looking at the situation, many people come to the conclusion that Catholics are voting the way that central command approves of, or else the last hundred years of American history would not look as it does and we surely would never have rewritten our immigration laws in 1965 to replace ourselves with exotic, third world foreigners.

31
posted on 08/01/2010 2:21:39 PM PDT
by ansel12
(Mitt: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush")

“if anything, they are sometimes joining the Protestant vote in recent decades, mostly during a reelection after first voting against the Republican, but it is a start.”

Wrong again. It is not that the Catholic vote has joined the Protestant vote since the Protestant vote is not monolithic, but rather that the Democrats have become more liberal and lost some of their supporters while picking up others. These shifts happen all the time in politics.

“Even Protestant Hispanics are voting to the right of Catholics.”

Nope. Some are voting more conservatively than some Catholics. Others are not.

The left almost never gets the Protestant vote, and the right almost never gets the Catholic vote.

Everyone knows that Catholic Hispanics vote almost 70% Democrat, but very few people know that Protestant Hispanics voted 56% Republican in 2004 and 48% Republican in 2008 (Catholics overall went 54% Obama), they are voting to the right of the overall Catholic vote.

And yes, the Catholic vote has always been pretty dependable for the left, in other words, if Catholics quit voting so pro-democrat they would not be winning those elections like 1940, and 1944, and 1948, and 1960 and so on, including Obama who did not win the Protestant vote of course. America would be a totally different nation, unimaginably different without the Democrat victories of those nightmarish and destructive years.

33
posted on 08/01/2010 5:02:30 PM PDT
by ansel12
(Mitt: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush")

There are millions of Protestants who voted for Obama. To say, “The left almost never gets the Protestant vote, and the right almost never gets the Catholic vote” is incredibly ignorant. Neither the left nor the right gets all of the votes of all Catholics or Protestants. You do realize that, right?

The only Protestant nation ever created, was the greatest nation ever created.

Byzantium, the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, Renaissance Italy were all great nations much like the United States came to be politically, survived for much longer that the United States has so far done, and gave the world the cultural treasure beyond comparison to the post-reformation cultural decadence that passes for modern culture. All these were institutionally Catholic.

The United States is a great country. As one Catholic thinker, G.K. Chesterton, described it, we are a nation with a soul of the Church. It is true that it was founded and at the time populated largely by Protestants. In great part the American success is due to the fact that the founding fathers expressly avoided the peril of one Protestant sect dominating it, or even Protestatism as a whole dominating it. It is also true that over time America became more Catholic, and now we see disintegration of Protestatism and ascendance of Catholicism as the only consistent voice in defense of human dignity, right to life, right to practice religion publicly, and right to local governance. Funny how things turn around.

“Wouldnt it be nice if the majority of Catholics voted like the majority of Protestants.”

I would rather that Catholics vote as Catholics should. I do not always assume that that means however Protestants vote in whatever election.

“Conservative Catholics need to learn what is going with Catholics and liberalism, and fix it, it would have been nice if Obama had not been elected, at least that is my view.”

Conservative Catholics have always known what is going on Catholics and liberalism. And it can’t be “fixed”. If it were something that could just be fixed, then Protestants would have healed themselves of it ages ago since it came from them in the first place. This is a problem ingrained in culture and it would be “fixed”. It will take a spiritual movement that only God can make happen. All we can do is support that. We cannot make it happen.

“I thought so, it is clear that politics and conservatism do not interest you much, America and conservatism do not rank high with you.”

Actually they do. God and my soul and the souls of others rank first. America and conservatism are also important but I freely admit that I do not confuse either one with Protestantism. You apparently do. You seem to be confused about much - especially if you do not put God and souls first.

Byzantium, the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, Renaissance Italy were all great nations much like the United States came to be politically, survived for much longer that the United States has so far done, and gave the world the cultural treasure beyond comparison to the post-reformation cultural decadence that passes for modern culture. All these were institutionally Catholic.

It is also true that over time America became more Catholic, and now we see disintegration of Protestatism and ascendance of Catholicism as the only consistent voice in defense of human dignity, right to life, right to practice religion publicly, and right to local governance. Funny how things turn around.

I see that you have never learned how special and unique America is and what makes it the greatest nation in history. I have learned that many Catholics are not big fans of early America. Before I joined FR, I never knew how much Catholics did not like the United States, and saw it as something that needed to made more European and similar to the old Catholic Europe

Catholics are a democrat voting block that elected Obama and have driven this nation to the left and has manipulated a colonization of America by the third world and liberal, pro-abortion, Catholic voters, they are not a force of conservatism, but of the left. On threads like this it often comes to seem that Catholics are at war with Protestant America and are in service to a foreign, global mentality

Even on something that they are supposed to be conservative on, abortion, they elect pro-abortion politicians. Obama is the most pro-abortion President ever elected and Catholics did it.

41
posted on 08/02/2010 8:29:54 AM PDT
by ansel12
(Mitt: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush")

I completely agree with you that the Catholics voting for pro-abort politicians is a sorry scandal, and points to the sick condition of the American Church. I have no way to verify your graphic, but if there is one Catholic advancing the culture of death in America that is one Catholic too many.

With the rest, I pretty much disagree.

There is nothing in my post to indicate that I am not a “big fan of early America”. May be there are some, I don’t know. I simply point out that great as early America was, it is no longer, while there were many great Catholic nations in the past that lasted a very long time and left and admirable legacy. I listed some of them.

The American Catholics were a reliable Democrat block before the Democrat party went off the deep end with their satanic cultural policy. We are less and less so, even though the Bush presidency gave Catholics nothing to be excited about. I happen to be an economic paleo-libertarian and so would not personally go anywhere near Democrat economic philosophy, but the Church in general has no position on the economic issues that divide (less and less, I might say) the two parties. So you will see some Catholic support big government nanny state and that has nothing to do with them being Catholic, and so is beside the point here.

Of course, there is no shortage of liberal Protestants of any description. We have Protestant churches of the kind where Rev Wright, Obama’s pal is preaching, and the kind that calls abortion a great blessing, and the kind that would bless gay “marriages”, and the kind that would bless marriage after divorce, and of course every Protestant church has nothing to say about contraception whatsoever. You may have a solid conservative contingent — God bless you for that — but you also have cultural liberalism not merely among the flock but preached from the pulpit.

Further, Protestantism is a liberal idea to begin with. The entire notion that one can open the Bible, find verses in there that he likes and start his own church preaching that — is foundational liberalism. It is ironic to see a Protestant, whose movement was born in protesting the authority of the Church at every corner, now tell me how sad it is that the American Catholic Church does not exercise enough authority to crack down on our liberal wing. Get your own jeremiah wrights, gene robinsons, joel olsteens out of your own eye first.

Of course, there is no shortage of liberal Protestants of any description. And America's greatness far exceeds those nations and empires that you mentioned, power, ruthlessness, and longevity are not the measures.

47
posted on 08/02/2010 6:16:42 PM PDT
by ansel12
(Mitt: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush")

Of course, there is no shortage of liberal Protestants of any description.

Evidently there is a big enough shortage that Protestants voting majority democrat is extremely rare, so yes, there definitely is a shortage (as far as democrats are concerned), that is why the immigration laws had to be changed to replace Americans with Mexicans and Latin Americans.

And America's greatness far exceeds those nations and empires that you mentioned, power, ruthlessness, and longevity are not the measures.

48
posted on 08/02/2010 8:00:50 PM PDT
by ansel12
(Mitt: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush")

Att his point, America is an overstretched empire repopulating itself with foreigners and at the verge of bankruptcy. America was great intil it became that, and yes, Protestantism had a lot to do with both her greatness and her present decline. History will judge America's contribution to mankind. The Catholic culture that Byzantium, the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, or Renaissance produced would however be hard to beat.

Amazing, it is like talking to the borg, America needs to be absorbed and made like old European nations, in other words, destroyed, overcome, in your Catholic reality.

I can see why Catholics make up the voting base of the American left and have going back as far as I can find, conservatives need to read posts like yours and understand why Catholics elect people like Obama, and why the Kennedys are Catholic royalty, and why they changed immigration.

50
posted on 08/03/2010 6:12:24 AM PDT
by ansel12
(Mitt: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush")

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.